JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2013 passed in R.A. No.152 of 2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Channapattana, Ramanagara District and the judgment and decree dated 02.04.2012 passed in O.S. No.36 of 2003 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Channapatna. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The original appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. 5. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties were the jointly purchased by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and their brother by name Boralingegowda as per the registered sale deed dated 22.07.1963; Defendant No.1 executed a relinquishment deed on 10.01.1980 by receiving a Rs. 200/- for per gunta and released her 1/3 rd share in favour of the plaintiff. Despite which, the khata of the suit schedule properties continued in their joint names and the same were in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff has put up a shed in item No.1 of the suit schedule property and is residing there along with his family members. He had obtained the electricity connection to the shed constructed in item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule properties for more than 22 years without any interruption, obstruction and perfected the title by way of adverse possession. It is contended that the defendants made an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule properties. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 6. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that before the filing of the present suit, O.S. No.357 of 1987 was filed for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction against the present plaintiff. 6. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that before the filing of the present suit, O.S. No.357 of 1987 was filed for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction against the present plaintiff. The said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 21.06.1990 and an appeal in R.A. No.38 of 1990 was preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.357 of 1987, which came to be dismissed. 7. It is contended that the defendants filed an Execution Petition in E.P. No.43 of 1999. In view of the above judgment passed in O.S. No.357 of 1987, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. Hence, there is no cause of action to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The cause of action shown in the plaint is false and imaginary. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the suit. 8. Defendant No.2 filed a Memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1. 9. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues and an additional issue: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties? 2. Whether the Plaintiff proves the alleged interference by the defendant over the suit schedule properties? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the suit is hit by principles of law of limitation? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for? 6. What Order or Decree? Addl. Issue: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has perfected his title over the suit property by adverse possession as alleged? 10. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3, and marked 14 documents as Exhibits P1 to P14. 11. The one of the legal representatives of defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1. Defendant No.2 was examined as DW-2 and marked 10 documents as Exhibits D1 to Exhibit D10. 12. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3, issue No.5 and Additional issue No.1 in the negative; issue No.4 in the affirmative; issue No.6 - as per the final order; The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with cost vide judgment dated 02.04.2012. 13. 12. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1 to 3, issue No.5 and Additional issue No.1 in the negative; issue No.4 in the affirmative; issue No.6 - as per the final order; The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with cost vide judgment dated 02.04.2012. 13. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the dismissal of suit in O.S. No.36 of 2003 preferred an appeal in R.A. No.152 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapattana. 14. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration: 1. Whether the appellant has made out sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court? 2. What order? 15. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, answered point No.1 in the negative; point No.2, as per the final order; the appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 24.06.2013 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 16. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the impugned judgments and decrees, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendants. 18. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that admittedly, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are having a joint interest in the suit schedule properties. He also submits that on the basis of Exhibit P-1, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule properties for more than the statutory period and acquired the title by way of adverse possession and he also submits that the decree passed in O.S. No.357 of 1987 is only a paper decree and defendant No.1 had not executed the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.357 of 1987. He also submits that the name of the plaintiff is appearing in the RTC extracts as the owner and in possession of the suit properties. The said aspect was not properly considered by both Courts below. He also submits that the defendants have not filed a suit for partition or injunction claiming that defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property. 19. He submits that the defendants have not denied the signature on Exhibit P-1. The said aspect was not properly considered by both Courts below. He also submits that the defendants have not filed a suit for partition or injunction claiming that defendant No.1 is in possession of the suit schedule property. 19. He submits that the defendants have not denied the signature on Exhibit P-1. He also submits that the Trial Court while passing the judgments has framed an additional issue and no opportunity was provided to the plaintiff to lead evidence on additional issue. He submits that the impugned judgment passed by the Courts below are arbitrary, erroneous and perverse. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. The plaintiff is claiming that he has acquired the title based on Exhibit P1. Exhibit P1 is an agreement. He submits that as per the proviso to Section 54 ,[54. “Sale” defined.—“Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid Sale how made.— Such transfer, in the case of tangible immoveable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument. In the case of tangible immoveable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. Delivery of tangible immoveable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property. Contract for sale.— A contract for the sale of immoveable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties. It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property.] of the Transfer of Property Act, merely on the basis of an agreement, the plaintiff cannot acquire any right over the suit schedule property. He also submits that alleged Exhibit P-1 came into existence on 10.01.1980, wherein a suit in O.S. No.357 of 1987 was filed. The present plaintiff has not pleaded in the earlier suit in O.S. No.357 of 1987 about the alleged Exhibit P-1 alleged to have been executed on 10.01.1980. The said Exhibit P-1 is got created to deprive the legitimate rights of defendant No.1 in the suit schedule properties. 21. The present plaintiff has not pleaded in the earlier suit in O.S. No.357 of 1987 about the alleged Exhibit P-1 alleged to have been executed on 10.01.1980. The said Exhibit P-1 is got created to deprive the legitimate rights of defendant No.1 in the suit schedule properties. 21. He also submits that in O.S. No.357 of 1987, the Civil Court has recorded a finding that defendant No.1 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The judgment dated 21.06.1990 was challenged by the plaintiff in R.A. No.38 of 1990. The said appeal was dismissed on 13.03.1996 and the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.357 of 1987 has attained finality and the judgment passed in the aforesaid suit binds on the plaintiff. 22. Hence, it is evident that both Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property as a owner and he also submits that the plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint as to when exactly the plaintiff came in possession of the suit schedule property, the nature of suit schedule property, and whether the factum of possession was known to defendant No.1. 23. He submits that the contention of the plaintiff is being falsified by the judgment passed in O.S. No.357 of 1987. As such, both Courts below have rightly passed the impugned judgments. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the appeal. 24. This Court vide order dated 07.04.2015, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: " 1. Whether the Courts below have committed an error in disbelieving the claim of the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit schedule property based on the judgment passed in O.S. No.357/1987 (Ex.D.1) and the same having attained finality in the appeal? 2. Whether the Courts below have committed an error in deciding the question with regard to adverse possession as claimed, by framing an additional issue in that regard after the case has been posted for judgment and without providing opportunity to the parties and to tender the evidence on the said issue? 3. Whether in that light, both the courts have arrived at a wrong conclusion which would indicate perversity in the nature of consideration of the evidence available on record? " Reg. Substantial Question of Law No.1 : 25. 3. Whether in that light, both the courts have arrived at a wrong conclusion which would indicate perversity in the nature of consideration of the evidence available on record? " Reg. Substantial Question of Law No.1 : 25. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties, and contended that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule properties as an owner for more than 22 years. The name of the plaintiff is entered in the revenue records and the defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule properties. 26. The plaintiff to substantiate his case examined himself as PW-1. He has deposed that the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and his brother have jointly purchased the suit schedule properties under a registered sale deed dated 22.07.1963. 27. Defendant No.1 executed an agreement dated 10.01.1980, agreeing to relinquish her one-third share in the suit schedule properties by receiving Rs. 200/- per gunta, in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, based on the said agreement/release deed dated 10.01.1980, became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendants have no right to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule properties. 28. The plaintiff to substantiate his case produced the documents: Exhibit P-1 is the agreement/ relinquishment deed dated 10.01.1980 to show that defendant No.1 has relinquished her right in favour of the plaintiff by accepting Rs. 200/- per gunta; regarding the property bearing Survey No.6/1 i.e., item No.1 of the suit property and property bearing No.679/3. Exhibit P-2 is the Mutation Register Extract, which discloses that based on Exhibit P-1, the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the revenue records; Exhibit P-3 is the RTC extract of SurveyNo.6/1; Exhibit P-4 is the RTC extract of Sy.No.679/2; Exhibit P-5 is the RTC extract of land bearing Survey No.679/2. Exhibit P-6 is the RTC extract of land bearing Survey No.6/1. All these RTCs stand in the name of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and his brother; 29. Exhibits P-7 and P-8 are the receipts for having paid the electricity bills; Exhibits P-9 to P-13 are the photographs; Exhibit P-14 is the negative. 30. Further, the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief has deposed regarding the adverse possession. 31. All these RTCs stand in the name of the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and his brother; 29. Exhibits P-7 and P-8 are the receipts for having paid the electricity bills; Exhibits P-9 to P-13 are the photographs; Exhibit P-14 is the negative. 30. Further, the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief has deposed regarding the adverse possession. 31. During the cross-examination, it is suggested to PW-1 that defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S. No.357 of 1987 against the plaintiff for the relief of declaration of title and injunction and the said suit was decreed and the plaintiff has filed an appeal in R.A. No.38 of 1990. PW-1 has denied the suggestion made to him that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 32. The plaintiff also examined two witnesses to prove that the suit schedule properties were purchased by the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and his brother and that defendant No.1 relinquished her one-third share in the suit schedule properties by accepting Rs. 200/- per gunta and accordingly executed Exhibit P-1. 33. In rebuttal, defendant No.1, since deceased represented by her legal representative, examined himself as DW-1. He reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and denied that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule properties as an absolute owner, for more than 22 years. He deposed that his mother has filed a suit in O.S. No.357 of 1987 for the relief of declaration of title and injunction and in the said suit, the Court has recorded a finding that defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties and granted an order of permanent injunction restraining the present plaintiff from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properties and he has produced a copy of the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.357 of 1987 marked as Exhibits D-1, and D-2 which discloses that the suit filed by defendant No.1 was decreed and the defendant therein (plaintiff herein) was permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' (therein) peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit item No.1 bearing Survey No.6/1 and suit item No.4 bearing Survey No.679/3 to the extents and within the boundaries, as detailed more fully in the plaint schedule. 34. The relief sought by defendant No.1 (herein)regarding suit item Nos.2 and 3 (therein) were rejected. 35. 34. The relief sought by defendant No.1 (herein)regarding suit item Nos.2 and 3 (therein) were rejected. 35. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in the said suit, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.38 of 1990. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment dated 13.03.1996; 36. He has produced at Exhibit D-3, a certified copy of the order-sheet in R.A. No.38 of 1990; Exhibit D-4 is a certified copy of the Memorandum of Appeal in R.A. No.38 of 1990; Exhibits D-5 and 6 are the certified copies of the judgment and decree in R.A. No.38 of 1998; Exhibit D-7 is the certified copy of the agreement dated 16.09.1985; Exhibit D-8 is a certified copy of the power of attorney; and Exhibit D-9 is a certified copy of the legal notice; 37. During the cross-examination of DW-1, it was suggested that defendant No.1 relinquished her 1/3 rd share in favour of the plaintiff by accepting Rs. 200/- per gunta and executed Exhibit P1. The said suggestion was denied by DW1; 38. Defendants also examined one more witness as DW-2 to prove their possession over the suit schedule properties. 39. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff, defendant No.1 and his brother jointly purchased the suit schedule properties under a registered sale deed dated 22.07.1963 and subsequently, on 10.01.1980, defendant No.1 relinquished her 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule properties by executing Exhibit P-1. 40. Defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S. No.357 of 1987, the present plaintiff was the defendant in the said suit. The defendant (therein) has not pleaded in the written statement regarding the alleged execution of Exhibit P-1 by defendant No.1 herein in favour of the plaintiff (herein). 41. The plaintiff was examined as DW-1 in the said suit and if the said document was executed on 10.01.1980, there was no legal impediment for the plaintiff to produce said Exhibit P-1 in the suit in O.S.No.357 of 1987. 42. The Trial Court, after recording the evidence, has recorded a finding that defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of suit item No.1 and item No.1 bearing Survey No.6/1 and item No.4 bearing Survey No.679/3 to the extent and within the boundary as detailed more fully in the plaint schedules and suit was dismissed in respect of Item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule. The said suit was disposed of vide judgment dated and 21.06.1990. 43. The plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A. No.38 of 1990. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated 13.03.1996. 44. Though the plaintiff is claiming to be in possession of the properties for more than 22 years, the contention of the plaintiff has been falsified by Exhibit D-1 wherein the Civil Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule properties exclusively as the absolute owner and it has recorded a finding that defendant No.1 herein is the absolute owner and is in possession of suit item No.1 land bearing Survey No.6/1 and Item No.4, land bearing Survey No. 679/3. 45. Admittedly, the present suit schedule properties are lands bearing Survey No.6/1 and 679/2. 46. From the perusal of the judgment passed in the said suit, it is clear that the plaintiff is not in absolute possession of the suit schedule property bearing Survey No.6/1 and he has not produced any documents to prove his possession over the property bearing Survey No.679/2. Further, the plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of Exhibit P-1. 47. From the perusal of the contents of Exhibit P-1, it is clear that it is a relinquishment deed, wherein defendant No.1 was alleged to have relinquished her1/3 rd share in favour of the plaintiff. 48. Section 17, [ 17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.— (1) The  following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force,namely:—(a) instruments of gift of immovable property;(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards , to or in immovable property;] of the Registration Act provides for the documents of which registration is compulsory, according to which, if the value of the property is more than Rs.100/-, it requires compulsory registration. 49. 49. Admittedly, by virtue of Exhibit P-1, the plaintiff is claiming a right over the suit schedule properties, where there is no mention about item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the consideration at Exhibit P-1 is Rs.200/- per gunta and the said document is unregistered, as such, Exhibit P-1 is inadmissible in evidence. The entire case of the plaintiff is based on Exhibit P-1 and he is also claiming that he had acquired the title by way of adverse possession. 50. The plaintiff has failed to establish that when the plaintiff came into possession of the suit schedule property; what was the nature of his possession; whether the factum of possession was known to the other party; how long his possession has continued and his possession was open and undisturbed. It is only on the proof of all these ingredients, the case of adverse possession is said to have been established.A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour, since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner. It is for him to clearly plead and establish all the facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. 51. Admittedly, in the instant case, the plaintiff has failed to prove all the essential ingredients of adverse possession. 52. Both Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact based on the judgment passed in O.S. No.357 of 1987 and held that the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule properties, and rightly passed the impugned judgments. 53. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of Law No.1 in the negative. Substantial Question No.2 : 54. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Trial Court while passing the impugned judgment has framed an additional issue which reads as follows: "Whether the plaintiff proved that he has perfected his title over the suit property by adverse possession as alleged?" 55. It is pertinent to note that though the Trial Court has framed an additional issue at the time of passing the judgment, the plaintiff has already lead evidence on the plea of adverse possession. Hence, there was no necessity for the Trial Court to record any evidence on the additional issue, as the evidence was already available on record. 56. It is pertinent to note that though the Trial Court has framed an additional issue at the time of passing the judgment, the plaintiff has already lead evidence on the plea of adverse possession. Hence, there was no necessity for the Trial Court to record any evidence on the additional issue, as the evidence was already available on record. 56. The parties having understood the pleading, went for a trial and subsequently, the parties cannot contend that no proper issue was framed and no opportunity was provided. 57. The Trial Court has recorded a finding on appreciation of the evidence lead by the parties on the plea of adverse possession. The Trial Court has rightly declined to grant permission to the plaintiff to lead evidence on additional issue No.1 as the plaintiff had already lead evidence on the additional issue. 58. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law No.2 in the negative. Reg. Substantial Question of Law No.3 : 59. Both Courts below have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff is in not exclusive possession and has not acquired any title by way of adverse possession and the Trial Court has rightly relied upon the judgment passed in O.S. No.357 of 1987, which has attained a finality as an appeal against the said suit was dismissed and no second appeal was preferred, and the judgment passed in O.S. No.357 of 1987 is binding on the plaintiff, as the plaintiff was a party in the said suit. 60. Both Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion and passed the impugned judgments. 61. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law No.3 in the negative. 62. In the result, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby confirmed. (iii) No order as to the costs. (iv) In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.